Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

The Sunday Post: Shrouded in Mystery

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Gildas the Monk on April 5, 2015

Regular readers will recall that from time to time I conduct one of my historical mystery tours. These have often yielded results which surprise me. It seems there are times when historical narrative and scientific fact appear to collide. When that happens it always seems to me that the two must be reconcilable, but something, some piece of information is missing somewhere. I thought the Turin Shroud might make a fitting topic for Easter. When it comes to that topic, the conflict is acute. Is it an image of the crucified body of Jesus Christ? Is it a medieval fake? I looked into it. I have come to the conclusion that whatever it is, the thing is astonishing.

The Turin Shroud was investigated by a 40-person team of international scientists in the late 70’s under the auspices of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). STURP examined the Shroud for nearly a week. Most of the scientists expected to able to explain the Shroud in terms of paint or scorch marks or the like quite quickly. That didn’t happen. The process by which it was created was baffling. They left with more questions than answers. One of the leaders of the project was Dr John Jackson PhD (physics and cosmology, I believe). He, like many scientists who have dealt with the object, appears to have become a little obsessed by it, in a good way. He has continued to research the Shroud and has one of the only full-scale complete reproductions available. I do not think he is a “believer” – I think he is just fascinated.

As is also well-known, in 1988 the Vatican permitted carbon dating tests in an effort to clear up controversy over the provenance of the Shroud. Its documented history could probably be pinned down to around 1390. Independent tests in 1988 at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concluded with 95% confidence that the shroud material dated to 1260–1390 AD. Job done; the Shroud had to be the result of a medieval fraudster.

The first reasonably clear reference to the Shroud of Turin in recent history is in possession of a French knight called Geoffroi de Charney in around 1353–1357, which would fit rather well with the carbon dating. However, something interesting has been discovered about this knight: recent research has discovered that he was married to a direct descendant of one of the knights who sacked Constantinople in 1204, amongst whom was Robert de Clari, another French knight and a Crusader, who observed and documented a religious ceremony involving ‘a’ Shroud. Where does this take us? In my view, Robert de Clari’s testimony is convincing. He often described matters which contemporaries would have airbrushed over, and although some historians have suggested that he was describing the Sudarium of Oviedo (a linen cloth allegedly wrapped around Christ’s post-crucifixion face, first mentioned outside of the Bible in 570 AD), that seems nonsense to me. He is quite specific about what he saw. Some weird ceremony was going on with a shroud being raised up before the congregation every Friday.

In my judgment, it is highly likely that the Shroud described by Robert de Clari saw being displayed every Friday is the Shroud of Turin. Dr Jackson suggests that the Shroud was being displayed in a form of contraption which raised it up to display the face and torso only, with a mechanism including a weighted bar which is consistent with the pattern of fold marks which can be detected in the linen. Linen has a memory. If so, this puts the date of the Shroud well before the cut off date suggested by the carbon dating, and all bets based on that carbon dating are off. The Byzantines were great showmen and lived by their rituals. Back lit, the Shroud would have been a dramatic and ethereal sight. Further, it is conceivable, and in my view perfectly plausible that the Shroud was associated with the Sudarium, pushing the date back still further. The two cloths are perfectly consistent with biblical descriptions of a Shroud and face-cloth. If that is correct, this pushes the date of the Shroud back to at least the seventh century.

The history of art is potentially highly significant. It seems that something happened in or around the mid-sixth century AD, which gave rise to a “standardised” version of the face of Jesus with a form consistent with the Shroud. Deploying modern forensic computer techniques to the earliest known image of Christ the Pantocrator and comparing it to the image on the Shroud of Turin suggests 120 points of similarity. Before this time there was a free for all about what Jesus looked like. After that time, consistent with the alleged rediscovery of the Mandylion (another cloth associated with Christ, this time emanating from Edessa, i.e. modern-day Turkey), a consensus seem to emerge with regard to the hair and beard, shape of the nose and eyes and so forth. Other art forms and coins from the same time display many notable similarities. There seems to have been a “Master Source” consistent with the Turin Shroud.

Later in the thirteenth century after the disappearance of whatever was being displayed in Constantinople, the art work of the Man of Sorrows is again very often consistent with the Turin Shroud and with it having been displayed in some form of device which raised it out of a box or mechanism to display the head and torso. To cut a long story short, as far as I can tell the marks of on the Turin Shroud which cause the image are not caused by paint or pigment. It is not a photograph. It is three-dimensional, and can only have been created whilst the cloth surrounded a three-dimensional object. Some scientists have suggested that it had to be a free-floating three-dimensional object, but that is not something I have any expertise upon which to comment. One theory is that the cloth could have been placed around a hot effigy. That would burn the cloth unless achieved in less than one tenth or even one hundredth of a second. There are no scorch marks in the image. In my view, that is not possible.

The image on the cloth appears to have created by the dehydrating oxidation (ageing) of the linen. The extent of discolourisation is astonishingly delicate. Each fibre of the linen used to create the weave is about the size of a human hair. There are 200 fibrils to a fibre. The discoloration is no more than 2 fibrils deep. Whatever caused it was not strong enough to pass through the apparent blood stains, and the extent of oxidation varies according to the proximity and closeness to the body. Where the linen has been pressed close to the body, such as around the nose, it is strongest. This gives a 3-D effect which scientists of the twenty-first century struggle to cope with or explain. I conclude that whatever caused the discoloration emanated from within the body or effigy around which the Shroud had been wrapped. As far as I am aware, science has not been able to reproduce the effect by known means.

So, a fourteenth century hoaxer created an object which is a negative, awaiting a twentieth/twenty-first century scientist to fail to explain. Seems reasonable? No, not really. We keep coming back to that carbon dating. It’s a bugger, this science thing. There are theories which seek to discount it. Contrary to the original plan to take several samples from over the Shroud, only one small sample was taken from near the corner of the Shroud. Could it have been contaminated? Had the Shroud been repaired before being put on show by Geoffroi de Charney, and was this the material which had been tested? There are other theories. I don’t know.

I can only conclude that the Turin Shroud is an exact reproduction of the body of a man whipped and beaten, whose head has been draped with a rough cap of a thorny plant (no “crown”, at least as often depicted – rather more mocking rough bunch of sharp vegetation), crucified in a manner consistent with Roman practice, and buried in accordance with the practices Jewish law of the first century AD. It appears to have been exposed to the elements in Jerusalem, Edessa and Constantinople. I do not know what the Turin Shroud is. Whatever it is, I do not think it is a fake. But what it is, and how it was created, I don’t know. And neither does anyone else.

A true Icon NOT a fake Relic might be the best way to describe the SOT. From a theological point of view and accepting that there was a historical Jesus who was crucified etc, then it is fairly safe to say that the man portrayed on the SOT isn’t he, isn’t Jesus. Wrong race, body shape, height and physical condition….unless you believe that Jesus was infact the bastard son of a Roman Legionary I suppose.

As to how it was made, I recall seeing a program that claimed the SOT was a sort of heliograph and someone has managed to reproduce the effect?

I’m of the opinion that it is a clever medieval forgery. Them folk from years ago were not daft and applied their technology, which was prodigious, with fine skill. The alternative is to consider that it is the shroud of Christ. This is not a conclusion which accords with reality or reason.

No the alternative is to consider it is the shroud of someone crucified somewhere, sometime in the first Centuries after Christ (or even before), if Christ even existed…for which there is, as I say time and time again, no evidence…not even ‘yewtree’ level ‘evidence’.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman Historian and Senator who noted the trial of Christ under Pontius Pilate. Josephus a Jewish historian writes about Christ’s crucifixion as well as Mara Bar-Serapions letter to his son which notes the retributions that followed the unjust treatment of ‘ The Wise King ‘ of the Jews. To claim that there is no evidence of his existence is like denying a Ferrari 448 is faster than a Fiat Uno.

@ Jrvf, None of which are ‘evidence’ (ie ‘primary evidence’ to get technical). In terms of evidence they are up there with newspaper reports about evil DJs serially abusing schoolgirls, 40 years ago, at Duncroft Academy For Young Ladies (that Middle class parents would kill to get their daughters into).

Grr French keyboards and American computers don’t mix. Such a senior person in the community where the only known medium was shared by very few people because of the high levels of general illiteracy would not be likely to publish stuff that if false could lead to HIS demise. He was a Roman Senator, in an empire which still at that time respected the integrity of it’s senior political citizens.

AFAIK, there is no original manuscript of the passage/ Annals…all we have are copies from many centuries later. Like I said, not primary evidence and all the wishing or sarcasm in the world won’t make it so. EVEN if we discovered the original annals hand written by the Great Tacitus himself it would only be a secondary source….at best and a secondary source is never primary evidence.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe that Jesus existed but love of the Scripture compels me to be honest and say that there is no evidence , let alone proof, that he did. Absence of proof isn’t proof of absence.

To be fair, on the basis of primary evidence, few events in history would be verifiable. I think on balance the evidence for the existence of Jesus is convincing, although there will always be an element of doubt. One thing you can be certain of is that he did not rise from the dead. The law of entropy has the last word on this one.

the a pattern of fold marks which can be detected in the linen. Linen has a memory. If so, this puts the date of the Shroud well before the cut off date suggested by the carbon dating, and all bets based on that carbon dating are off. The Byzantines were great showmen and lived ritual.

Given that the ultimate proof of Jesus being God the Son, rather than just another “prophet”, required Jesus to rise again, and ultimately ascend bodily into heaven, it seems rather counter-intuitive that so many religious folk were convinced they had a bone or two of his in a box under the altar. But fervently believe, they did. Similarly, given that he only spent a maximum of three days in his tomb, the Shroud would be more like a Polaroid than a heliograph.

I recall a theory someplace that the Renaissance artists learned how to paint in a more life-like way by use of the Camera Obscura. Not sure why nobody had thought of using it earlier, since it’s known to have been around since before Christ.

Corpses, and the shrouds they’re rapped in, generally tend to be buried or burned. Therefore, in modern times, there is less likelihood of people seeing the phenomena. But in olden times, I would have thought there would be much need to rob graves, and resurrect many samples of fine linen; along with their weird stains.

Interestingly enough, the chemistry of death is the explanation behind how carbon dating works; because the carbon of all living things is in equilibrium with the atmosphere of its day, whereas dead things are not. Hence, when the sample stops ‘living’, then the amount of carbon-14, gained from the transmutation of atmospheric nitrogen by cosmic rays, naturally decays, and is not replaced, as it would be if the sample were still alive.

And the sample required for a carbon dating run, can be minuscule; as the machine literally separates charged atoms and molecules, and counts them separately to measure the ratios of their isotopes. For example of scale, consider that there are approximately 50,000,000,000,000 [50 trillion] atoms of carbon-12 in one nano gramme of carbon; of which 50 of them will be naturally occurring carbon-14. After about 5700 years, that dead sample would have approximately 25 carbon-14 atoms [whilst its living twin would still have 50 carbon-14 atoms].

I have read, somewhere in the dim and distant past, that one suggestion of the identity in the shroud is Jacques de Molay the last leader of the Knights Templar. It certainly looks more like a European subject than one from the Levant.

Normally, the moment anyone brings up either the Templars or the Essenes, or worst case both, it’s time for all serious historians and theologians to run away, to RUN AWAY NOW… casting handfuls of diazepam in their fleeing wakes. However in this case I recall vaguely thinking the ‘de Molay’ theory actually sounded reasonable when I read it and you’re right that the ‘body’ of the shroud certainly doesn’t match up with what little we can surmise about the, possibly, historical Jesus.

Ignoring faith alone, I guess the question must be: by the time we have the techniques to resolve the question of it’s origin with certainty, will it have deteriorated beyond such assessment? I’ve long been intrigued by this artefact, but I do wonder why we assume it’s the product of contact with a body? Might it just as easily have been used to cover a wooden or stone effigy; perhaps of some ritual significance? Perhaps made from or coated with a substance causing the reaction with the linen? It might explain the reproduction of the hair, which seems unfeasibly solid for a horizontal cadaver, unless heavily lacquered. & the image size would not necessarily be as life. Just a thought & I know nothing.

I once saw a photo of the ‘imprint’ a dying hospital patient left on the mattress cover of their bed. It didn’t show the full body, just the lower back, upper thighs and buttocks, and the hand and wrist that the deceased had wedged under his buttock. The image looked to me to be in ‘negative’ as does the S of T: perhaps there is some rare but natural phenomenon behind it.

PS I’ve just had a look on google to see if this photo is on the interweb, but the search terms “dead body imprint mattress” brought up such a gallery of horror that I had to stop.

I remember that image – it was imprinted on a red rubber incontinence sheet. The explanation, as I recall, was that the patient had been suffering from liver disease and the sheet had become discoloured from prolonged contact with the bile in his urine while he lay dying/dead.

I’m not at all religious but I have no problem with the idea that there was an entirely human Jesus-like character/characters on whom the supernatural character of Jesus is based. Messiah preachers at the time were common and more than one seems to have remarkably similar stories to the gospels attached to them. It’s also not surprising that it’s difficult to reverse engineer an effect produced accidentally or otherwise in a virtually prehistoric culture long ago.

Johanan ben Zakkai, Hillel’s last pupil and a contemporary of Jesus, is quoted as saying, “If you are planting a tree and you hear that Messiah has come, finish planting the tree, then go and inquire.”

And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.”

One of those sentences full of banal detail that lead some theologians (Robinson wrote a learned tome on the subject) to believe that chunks of John are actually based on an eye-witness account. Not evidence per se but probably as near to evidence as we will get barring some new find.

Stewart, I don’t think we can consider the gospels as accurate reporting, especially John, which is replete with religious imagery and esoteric Christian symbolism. This is not history in any accepted modern sense, just devotion.

Carbon dating is problematic, as it assumes constant atmospheric ratios of the carbon isotopes, whereas that ratio has been found to vary wildly through time. To overcome that, carbon dating was calibrated against dendrochronology. But that brings up another gotcha, there are too few samples of wood in the period 500-1000 AD to form a reliable dating.

“…it assumes constant atmospheric ratios of the carbon isotopes, whereas that ratio has been found to vary wildly through time.”

Let us assume that is true [though you would have to show some other means of proving it], for any period of the carbon life in equilibrium with the atmosphere, it would share the same variations of carbon-14 with other contemporary living things. Thus by the use of any dendrochronological comparison, it can be established, or refuted. So, as long as living things of a period, share the same atmosphere, it becomes irrelevant as to the variation of isotopes in other times, since the dead thing is carbon fixed for the time of its death.

It would only be a problem if the atmosphere should local variations of isotopes for a given time. This would be hard to believe, owing to the atmosphere being mobile.

The problem with that idea is that it fails to account for the verifiable astronomical data, such as eclipses, planetary conjunctions and appearances of Halley’s Comet that were recorded by the Chinese all the way before, during and after the “missing years”. The Chinese also recorded quite a lot of interesting and detailed history – including the invention of gunpowder, paper and printing, plus the names, dates and doings of the entire Tang Dynasty – during the first milennium. Other cultures, such as the Greeks and Egyptians, were also keeping astronomical records during this time. If you’re interested in bonkers ideas, this is a fascinating read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29

Chinese and other chronologies may be correct, this does not mean European chronology is, unless you can link them. The 234 years gap spotted in the tree rings is three Halley cycles, astronomical observations do have to be respected.

There’s other oddities, take porphyry. Porhpyry is a very hard rock, famous for being the imperial purple, and came from one quarry in the middle of the Egyptian desert. The romans discovered it around 20 AD, but it was “lost” in about 330AD. Not only was the quarry lost, but the method of carving it was lost too. Yet Constantinople, founded at around the same time the quarry was lost, is full of it. That suggests an earlier date for the founding of Constantinople than the 4th century, unless all that prophyry is spoilae from the western empire.

“Linen has a memory.” Careful Gildas, you’ll have those anti homeopathy Science Inquisitors on your case. When I’ve tried to explain (while emphasizing I am not a fan of homeopathy) that water does in fact have a memory and I was involved in a project run by ICL and Fujitsu to explore ways of harnessing it back in the 1980s they get very tetchy. (Water is inorganic as are the oxides used in computer memory, writing date in water was fairly easy, retrieving it was a bugger – and of course water and computer innards don’t mix well) According to the theory of quantum entanglement all matter has a kind of memory at atomic level. Experiments have shown there is substance to the theory though it is a long way from being provable. If it does turn out to be true however, it turns a lot of established science upside down. I guess this is why a lot of scientists close their minds to things like how the Turin Shroud migh have been created.

“Entanglement” isn’t memory. It means what it says – two or more particles apparently affecting one another from a distance, instantaneously. Think of that fantastic apparition of a starling “murmuration” at twilight – that would be a crude visual representation of entanglement. The overall state of the entangled particles is constantly changing, so there’s no preserved memory state. As for the Shroud, I think the theory of an early experiment in photography is perfectly feasible – 14thC alchemists had the means for it, apparently.

It is a weird thing. But I’m inclined to think it was some sort of accidental effect rather than deliberately faked in this way, which is why it is so hard to reproduce; some random combination of whatever the cloth was draped over, light, temperature, humidity, etc etc.

If the Vatican suspect or even worse know the SOT not to be the cloth that the supposed Christ was laid to rest in, they are hardly likely to want it to be examined too closely. The various tests carried out over the years have been severely hampered by the conditions set by the church authorities. For example the quantities of material available for testing and the areas from which they can be taken. The church not wanting the relic to be altered or damaged, which I guess is understandable. After all, if the SOT was shown, beyond all doubt, to be medieval in origin, the church would loose credabilty and a fair amount of income from the pilgrims who flock to view it on the rare occasions it is put on display. Then again, it all depends on whether or not Jesus ever existed in the first place. There has been quite a lot of learned research undertaken looking for historical evidence to prove or disprove the existance of the biblical character. One of the better academics on the subject is Dr. Richard Carrier. He has given many lectures and presentations, some of which are posted on YouTube.

As a child being brought up in the catholic faith in England, there was little ever said about the Shroud. I grew up with the definite impression that it was something of a “continental fancy” and not something to be taken very seriously. Lourdes miracles however were strongly promoted as something real that we should believe in.